Cape Cod Rail, Bridges and Highways

fatnoah said:
I fully support the suggested rotary alternative, but mostly because it continues our tradition of making nonstandard rotaries and roundabouts.
Click to expand...

No idea why the mainline isn’t blasted through the middle other than to save the bushes. Definite head scratcher since all those signals don’t exactly make it a low cost alternative. That said Im also 128% for it.
 
Highwayguy said:
Bikes, pedestrians, and horses are apparently allowed to use the rotaries on 28, but are prohibited on the mainline. These signs are posted just downstream of each rotary and on interchange ramps.
Click to expand...
You're right. I missed that sign. It's odd that bikes would be prohibited from Rte 28 south of the rotary because this is not an expressway, but just a divided highway with a lot of curb cuts and cross traffic. Maybe that could be changed to allow bikes to use the paved shoulders on rte 28 down to where rte 28a takes off, once the new bridge is built.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Both of the highway bridges connect to non-expressway roads at both ends of each bridge, so bike lanes on the new bridges are most definitely warranted, Also, route 28 south from the Bourne Bridge to where route 28A tales off is a divided highway but not an expressway, so bikes can use the shoulders.
Click to expand...

rte 3/6 is an expressway on both sides.
 
Charlie_mta said:
You're right. I missed that sign. It's odd that bikes would be prohibited from Rte 28 south of the rotary because this is not an expressway, but just a divided highway with a lot of curb cuts and cross traffic. Maybe that could be changed to allow bikes to use the paved shoulders on rte 28 down to where rte 28a takes off, once the new bridge is built.
Click to expand...

I would not feel safe riding a bike along 28. It's a road where the speed limit is 45-50 mph and people drive a bit faster than that. Besides, there is already an expansive bike trail that runs from Woods Hole up to 151. So adding in bike specific lanes on 28 would not be needed.

Perhaps a dedicated crossing (apart from the two road crossings) of the canal for bikes and walkers would be better? This way you could tie in both sides of the canal and then hookup with the existing bike path. It would make for a really nice ride to Woods Hole.
 
Last edited:
mass88 said:
I would not feel safe riding a bike along 28. It's a road where the speed limit is 45-50 mph and people drive a bit faster than that. Besides, there is already an expansive bike trail that runs from Woods Hole up to 151. So adding in bike specific lanes on 28 would not be needed.

Perhaps a dedicated crossing (apart from the two road crossings) of the canal for bikes and walkers would be better? This way you could tie in both sides of the canal and then hookup with the existing bike path. It would make for a really nice rude to Woods Hole.
Click to expand...
I like the idea of a separate bike crossing over the canal (instead of on the two proposed road bridge replacements). But, as far as it actually getting done, the two new road bridges are the politically and fiscally expedient way to go, since they are funded and will probably happen in the (near?) future.
 
North Shore said:
In an ideal world, we'd have a robust public transit system that gets people from the core urbanized areas in an around Boston to the Cape, along with a light rail system within the Cape itself.

But we don't. And the fact remains that Cape tourism is a major economic engine for the state. And no matter how many people take the Cape Flyer, the harsh reality is that the vast majority of people (including a significant amount of out-of-towners from beyond SE MA) are going to drive there. The current infrastructure is obsolete. Replacing the bridges with modern ones that provide not only improved vehicular access, but safer pedestrian and bicycle accommodation is far overdue.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I'm not opposed to rebuilding the bridges. I'm just annoyed that it is always so much easier to find funding for large car infrastructure projects when we so desperately need to spend more on transit.
 
I'm just pulling in some of the slides showing conceptual designs.

While they're nominally deferring to public feedback as to which type of bridge they're going to go for, I think the language they've chosen pretty clearly indicates a preference towards the arch design, though I myself am very partial to a cable stayed bridge. I also personally think that while a single bridge is probably aesthetically best, I also understand why the State / Army would want to build the replacement as pairs.

Screenshot_20221117_203134_Adobe Acrobat.jpg

Screenshot_20221117_202109_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
Screenshot_20221117_202055_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
Screenshot_20221117_202044_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
Screenshot_20221117_201902_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
 
Last edited:
Regardless of the final bridge design, will there be a reconfiguration of the actual Bourne Rotary?
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Seems like they are pushing the dual arch design. The other designs are definitely not presented objectively.
Click to expand...

Haha, yeah, it would hard to be more blatantly pushing the desired design. That said, the arch or cable stayed both are probably the best choice, so if they want to push the arch then fine.
 
bakgwailo said:
Haha, yeah, it would hard to be more blatantly pushing the desired design. That said, the arch or cable stayed both are probably the best choice, so if they want to push the arch then fine.
Click to expand...
Agreed that they're clearly pushing that design. But lets be honest: there are enough NIMBYs around that anything remotely different will never get off the page. May as well just accept that and help smooth the way forward.

That said, whether it is just due to the proposal priming me or genuine appreciation of the design, I do like the arch design, aesthetically. And the fact that the arch can be built off-site is a big advantage, in my eyes.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Seems like they are pushing the dual arch design. The other designs are definitely not presented objectively.
Click to expand...
Well, sure, but I'd guess a lot of that is skillful tea leaf reading. The arch design is clearly best from an aesthetic and historic/cultural preservation standpoint. The cable stayed, frankly, looks ridiculous, and the concrete box is a generic highway overpass that would fit perfectly along a section of I-10 passing over Alabama swampland.
 
I mentioned earlier in this thread that I expected that they would go for a tied arch here and it seems they will. The dual cable stayed spans is an expensive and excessive option for such a short span and not likely to make it past initial proposals (though it would be beautiful). Tied arches are relatively cheap, easy to install, and are the go to span these days for basically anything in the 75-250 meter range. Its telling that the old john greenleaf whittier bridge, which was a miniature copy of the bourne and sagamore bridges, was replaced with two network tied arch bridges. It would be pretty cool though if the bourne bridge was replaced with tied arches and the sagamore with cable stayed bridges, but I dont think that would happen. Would be iconic though.

Using network tied arches over the canal would mean keeping the historic arch bridge silhouette over the canal, while using modern techniques, this is definitely a win win. Plus the bridges could be built in full off site and then floated up the canal and lifted into place. There is also no need for heavy or complex anchors on either side because the tie holds the ends of the arches in tension, simplifying construction further. It definitely makes the most sense to go with tied arches here.
 
Last edited:
Prior to wholesale roadway redesign as part of the bridges project, MassDOT is proposing an ... interesting... non-standard interim modification to the Bourne Rotary. (and apparently abandoning the conceptual approach from the 2019 study, which given the future two-bridge architecture may make sense)
Not going to lie, I think if it was my first time as an out of state visitor, it would actually confuse me more - especially the need to shift right a lane to continue on 28 and that left turn lane marking as depicted coming southbound over the bridge.

1670192516371.png
1670191961141.png
 

Attachments

  • 1670192212098.png
    1670192212098.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 64
Last edited:
Stlin said:
Prior to wholesale roadway redesign as part of the bridges project, MassDOT is proposing an ... interesting... non-standard interim modification to the Bourne Rotary. (and apparently abandoning the conceptual approach from the 2019 study, which given the future two-bridge architecture may make sense)
Not going to lie, I think if it was my first time as an out of state visitor, it would actually confuse me more - especially the need to shift right a lane to continue on 28 and that left turn lane marking as depicted coming southbound over the bridge.

View attachment 31419View attachment 31412
Click to expand...
If we're already spending for a new bridge, why the hell are we not eliminating the rotary for an interchange like we did with Sagamore? The crash stats at both the Bourne and Otis rotaries are horrifying...some of the worst in the whole state. This isn't a tangible enough improvement to move the needle on that; it's putting lipstick on a pig.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
If we're already spending for a new bridge, why the hell are we not eliminating the rotary for an interchange like we did with Sagamore? The crash stats at both the Bourne and Otis rotaries are horrifying...some of the worst in the whole state. This isn't a tangible enough improvement to move the needle on that; it's putting lipstick on a pig.
Click to expand...
I think that's actually the point - They're putting lipstick on it for cheap so they can say they're doing something about crashes while they wait for any major changes to be advanced as part of the bridge project, given that this is expected to cost just 37% of the programmed TIP amount.
1670194461522.png

1670194371053.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top